drogers@riacs.edu (David Rogers) (03/25/89)
From: drogers@riacs.edu (David Rogers)
Article-ID: <5072@cbnews.ATT.COM>
From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt)
BTW: The U.S. does NOT have a LRRP capability. We have Special Forces
'A-Teams' who train indiginuous guerrilla forces - we have Ranger
Battalions who conduct 'direct action' combat patrols - but, we (U.S.) do
not have units specifically organized, trained, equiped to conduct long
range reconnsaisance - behind enemy lines.
I spent a weekend with a Michigan National Guard unit whose mission was
long-range recon. They were organized as a company of Airborne Rangers, but
the training was primary LRRP: get dumped hundreds of miles behind
enemy lines, collect info, radio it back, and avoid contact at all costs.
They were definately not 'direct action' combat patrols. As I recall,
there was another company of LRRPs in the Texas National Guard.
I believe there was one active-duty company of LRRPs in the Army, but
I may be mistaken. However, it is incorrect to state that the US Army
does not train troops specifically for LRRP.major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) (03/30/89)
From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) >...it is incorrect to state that the US Army does not train troops >specifically for LRRP...... Well, to clarify: By current Table of Organizations, the US Army does not have a TO&E LRRP unit. By doctrine they should exist at Corps-level. But, today - non exist. But you are correct in stating that units organize their own LRRP capabilities and train for LRRP operations. It's done by necessity. We did it in the 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division - and also in the 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division. Some battalions create a LRRP capability out of their Scout Platoons. At one point in the development of 'doctrine' and 'organization', divisions had LRRP platoons organic to Combat Intelligence Companies (I commanded one such company in the 1st Div). There's always been a doctrinal conflict between the Infantry School and the Intelligence School about where LRRPs should be. Since their mission is (should) be pure intelligence collection, Intel has always wanted them to be with Intelligence Units. However, since LRRPs are basically infantrymen - Infantry shudders at the possibility of infantry under control of someone else. Then, you give a commander a unit of infantry with some combat power - and he employs them as a combat unit - not as LRRPs. That's been my experience. NATO LRRPs, on the other hand, will work for nobody but the Corps G-2. major "Scouts out!"
military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (03/31/89)
From: rutgers!xenna.encore.com!maxzilla!waltm (Walt Matthieson) In article <5128@cbnews.ATT.COM> drogers@riacs.edu (David Rogers) writes: > BTW: The U.S. does NOT have a LRRP capability. We have Special Forces > 'A-Teams' who train indiginuous guerrilla forces - we have Ranger > Battalions who conduct 'direct action' combat patrols - but, we (U.S.) do > not have units specifically organized, trained, equiped to conduct long > range reconnsaisance - behind enemy lines. > >I believe there was one active-duty company of LRRPs in the Army, but >I may be mistaken. However, it is incorrect to state that the US Army >does not train troops specifically for LRRP. As far as I know there never was a company of LRRPs in the Army however there were several schools that had that training. I attended the 6 week LRRP course at Camp Macall on the Ft. Bragg reservation in the early 70s, this course was much harder for me than Ranger school although Ranger School was longer. The whole idea was to have teams assigned to various unit commands so that the commander could use the team as he saw fit. In Nam there were many LRRP teams operating under the various commands but I don't think there was a company sized team. Maybe you are thinking of Co. C 1st of the 75th Rangers which operated Walt Mattison Airborne Ranger SF Halo ( and retired 8 ) ) ,
john@jclyde.cactus.org (John B. Meaders Jr.) (04/07/89)
From: john@jclyde.cactus.org (John B. Meaders Jr.) In article <5237@cbnews.ATT.COM> ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) writes: > > Well, to clarify: By current Table of Organizations, the > US Army does not have a TO&E LRRP unit. By doctrine they should exist > at Corps-level. But, today - non exist. > This is from FM 101-10-1/1 (Staff Officers' Field Manual Organizational, Technical, and Logistical Data [Volume 1]): >From Chapter 1, Section I (Heavy Division, Mechanized or Armored) TOE: 07209J4 UNIT: Airborne Infantry, Long-Range Surveillance Detachment, Armored Division or Mechanized Infantry Division PAGE: 1-42 >From Chapter 2, Section I (Light Infantry Division) TOE: 07109L0 UNIT: Airborne Infantry, Long-Range Surveillance Detachment PAGE: 2-44 >From Chapter 3, Section I (Air Assault Division) TOE: 07209L0 UNIT: Airborne Infantry, Long-Range Surveillance Detachment PAGE: 3-68 >From Chapter 4, Section I (Airborne Division) TOE: 07109L0 UNIT: Airborne Infantry, Long-Range Surveillance Detachment, Infantry Division (Light) PAGE: 4-54 >From Chapter 6, Section I (Motorized Division) TOE: 7-157 UNIT: Long-Range Surveillance Company PAGE: 6-82 Corps would normally have a Long-Range Surveillance Company (depending on the mission). Theater would have a Long-Range Surveillance Battalion (depending on the mission). This FM has no distribution restrictions and is approved for public release. If you desire specific information on any of the TOEs I have listed send me e-mail. Disclaimer: I speak for myself. I do not speak for the Department of the Army nor the Department of Defense. -- 2LT John B. Meaders, Jr. E CO, 266 QM BN, 23 QM BDE, QM OBC 89-6, Ft. Lee, VA 23801-5323 ATT: Voice: +1 (804) 733-4100 UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!natinst!sequoia!jclyde!john or john@jclyde.cactus.org
gross@DG-RTP.DG.COM (Gene Gross) (04/11/89)
From: Gene Gross <gross@DG-RTP.DG.COM> In article <5274@cbnews.ATT.COM> you write: > > >From: rutgers!xenna.encore.com!maxzilla!waltm (Walt Matthieson) > >In article <5128@cbnews.ATT.COM> drogers@riacs.edu (David Rogers) writes: >> BTW: The U.S. does NOT have a LRRP capability. We have Special Forces >> 'A-Teams' who train indiginuous guerrilla forces - we have Ranger >> Battalions who conduct 'direct action' combat patrols - but, And so forth.... 8-) >As far as I know there never was a company of LRRPs in the Army however there >were several schools that had that training. I attended the 6 week LRRP course >at Camp Macall on the Ft. Bragg reservation in the early 70s, this course was >much harder for me than Ranger school although Ranger School was longer. >The whole idea was to have teams assigned to various unit commands so that the >commander could use the team as he saw fit. In Nam there were many LRRP teams >operating under the various commands but I don't think there was a company sized >team. Maybe you are thinking of Co. C 1st of the 75th Rangers which operated > >Walt Mattison Airborne Ranger SF Halo ( and retired 8 ) ) > >, > The SF LRRP course at Macall was in existence back when I was in (60s). I attended after completing the "Q-course" and I agree, Walt, it was much harder than Ranger course-- but only because it was more concentrated in time. However, I found that my experiences in Ranger School (a.k.a. Benning School For Boys) helped. As for standing LRRP units, they do not exist in any Army TO&E that I'm aware of to date. SF and Ranger units are about as close as we come. MI has always wanted dominion over such units and that may be why the brass have not added any LRRP units to TO&Es. Mean_Gene